SECURED CAPITAL CORP. OF N.Y. v. DANSKER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants' contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver is without merit. The appointment of a receiver is a drastic and intrusive remedy and may only be invoked in cases where the moving party has made a clear evidentiary showing of the necessity of conserving the property and protecting the interests of that party ( see, Modern Collection Assocs. v. Capital Group, 140 A.D.2d 594). While the defendants demonstrated their apparent interest in the specific funds and properties which are the subject of this action ( see, Lefebvre v. Shea, 212 A.D.2d 884; Meurer v. Meurer, 21 A.D.2d 778), they failed to demonstrate that those funds or properties are in danger of being materially injured or destroyed ( see, CPLR 6401[a]).